The General Synod vote over the ordination of women bishops is expected to be
a success for common sense.

What a difference 20 years makes. In 1992, the debate within the Church of England over the ordination of women priests was a political as well as theological spectacle. The issues at stake were so elemental, and the feelings so impassioned, that both sides resorted to rhetoric closer to the Book of Revelation than to the Sunday sermon.

Today, as the General Synod decides whether to take the next step along that road and sanction the ordination of women bishops, the tone is decidedly calmer. Instead of protests and demonstrations, there was a deliberately sober – and silent – prayer vigil at Westminster Abbey, in which those on all sides were invited to search their consciences in peace.

Although the vote is expected to be tight, this reflects more the complexity of the Church’s governance than the balance of feeling inside it. The measure must secure two-thirds majorities in each of the Synod’s houses: bishops, clergy and laity. Although the vote in the last of these is expected to be close-run, the bulk of the Church hierarchy is in favour, not least the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and his successor, Justin Welby. The Church has not only grown comfortable with women priests, but depends on them to keep up the numbers. As for its congregations, they have had almost two decades to get used to having a woman in the pulpit. That those same priests should be able to progress to higher office will seem like simple common sense.

There are, of course, those who disagree – and their objections should not be taken lightly. Some regard women bishops as an unconscionable departure from orthodoxy; others as driving a final wedge between Lambeth and Rome; still others as a breach of a biblical injunction establishing male leadership of the Church. Yet the point at issue in today’s vote is not so much the principle itself as the protection that will be given to those who refuse to accept it. An earlier compromise, promoted by Dr Williams, was shot down by supporters of women bishops, who felt that it offered so much to the irreconcilables that it would condemn the new bishops to second-class status.

It would be wrong for us to pronounce on the merits of the proposals on the table, or their theological validity. At the same time, the creation of women bishops will feel to many like a natural step, and one that could resolve more tensions than it would create. A no vote would not only infuriate supporters of the measure and ensure years of further wrangling, but also undermine the next Primate’s authority before he has even been installed. Judging by his predecessor’s travails, that is one headache Bishop Welby could do without.